{
  "id": 8658895,
  "name": "W. J. WRIGHT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1911-11-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "562",
  "last_page": "562",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "157 N.C. 562"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 114,
    "char_count": 1146,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "sha256": "ea58e8dfb67450b31ae31dda48c0d3a1337321a34544d7ada6f132ffeaebdd25",
    "simhash": "1:4cbdff3fbe8a8cf1",
    "word_count": 188
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:03.195282+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. J. WRIGHT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nUpon an examination of the record and assignments of error of both plaintiff and defendant in this case we are of opinion that the court below committed no substantial error, and that the case has been fairly and correctly tried.\nNo error.\nSame case, defendant\u2019s appeal, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Faison -& Wright for plaintiff.",
      "Junius Davis for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. J. WRIGHT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 27 November, 1911.)\nCarriers of Goods \u2014 Failure to Furnish Cars \u2014 Interpretation of Statutes.\nNo substantial error is found on appeal in this case for damages against the carrier for failing and refusing to furnish cars ordered by the plaintiff for the purpose of moving cordwood from a certain siding.\nAppeal from Cline, J., at August Term, 1911, of SampsoN. Civil action. These issues were answered by the jury:\n1. Did the defendant* wrongfully fail and refuse to furnish the cars ordered by him to move his cordwood from the siding between Mints and Parkersburg, as alleged? Answer: Yes.\n2. What damage, if any, has plaintiff sustained? Answer: $250.\nFrom the judgment rendered the plaintiff and defendant both appealed.\nFaison -& Wright for plaintiff.\nJunius Davis for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0562-01",
  "first_page_order": 602,
  "last_page_order": 602
}